As a Reformed Baptist I'm pretty sure my comments won't be appreciated. Once I saw where the thread was going I knew it was time for me to bow out. I am reading it though with great interest.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The Corporate View of Election
- Thread starter Skandelon
- Start date
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
If it is the will of man it is not election.
Hello MO,
You might enjoy this;
http://www.founders.org/library/dagg_vol1/bk7c4.html#sec1
Many of us here enjoy the biblical view of election. God elects individual sinners and puts them together as a habitation of God Himself.
Peter speaks of each individual as living stones, built together into a Holy temple.
Some do not like the biblical testimony,but would rather change it according to their own carnal reasoning......and attempt to diminish what is clearly taught.
Many of us agree with the historic faith.:thumbs::wavey:
Iconoclast, thanks. I am going to try and employ some discretion as to which threads I'll participate in. Since corporate election and Reformed soteriology are antithetical towards each other there is not a lot I can offer to this thread.
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
Well, election is not specifically mentioned, but lets take each of the verses you highlighted in turn:
Is it foolishness to them because:
1. They deemed it to be foolish by their own free choice, they 'traded the truth in for lies,' and 'refused to love the truth so as to be saved?' (ref Rm 1, 2 Thess 2)
or
2. Because God punished them with a totally depraved nature from birth due to Adam's Sin and didn't love them salvifically thus leaving them hopeless from birth? (ref Calvin's Institutes)
or
2. Because God punished them with a totally depraved nature from birth due to Adam's Sin and didn't love them salvifically thus leaving them hopeless from birth? (ref Calvin's Institutes)
I don't see where this passage provides any answer to that question. I only see you reading your answer into that passage.
Don't you believe that "many are called but few are chosen."???
Where does this passage tell us that those called were called irresistibly? Is that an argument from silence simply because he refers to those who respond as being called? We call Army recruits, "Recruits," but does that mean those are the only ones the Army attempted to recruit? Again, nothing here supports your view unless you read something into it.
Now wait a sec. Don't you guys believe in UNCONDITIONAL election? If so, how do you use this verse to support that view when clearly the conditions listed here are those who are unwise, not mighty, and not noble? If these aren't conditions for God's calling of them, then are you suggesting that God made them to be all these things before deciding to elect them? How does that work? Doesn't God always know how they are going to act? Please explain.
Enough for now...getting too long.
1]clearly the conditions listed .....[these are not conditions}but descriptions
2]then are you suggesting that God made them to be all these things before deciding to elect them? [ No one suggests that at all.No one thinks that way,except you]
3]How does that work? Doesn't God always know how they are going to act? Please explain[/QUOTE]
[God does not elect based on how man acts} your wrong view of theology has you go off on these tangents...no one is following you.
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
Fine, but they are descriptions that God must have known prior to electing them, right? So, logically speaking, how can they not be seen as conditions? Either God chose people and made them weak, or he chose weak people.
ORRRR, people who "humble themselves will be exalted" (ding, ding, ding)
Yes...I understand completely:thumbs::thumbs::wavey:
[God does not elect based on how man acts} your wrong view of theology has you go off on these tangents...no one is following you.[/QUOTE]
Carnal reasoning.
Carnal reasoning.[/QUOTE]
:laugh::laugh::laugh: I will give you this one webdog.....as I cannot prove this for certain....he could have other reasons or motives:thumbsup:
I'm talking about the very philosophy you employ yet ironically (or iconoclastically) condemn.
...and really...how can you understand deep systematic theology when an elementary, trivial duty like using the quote feature properly escapes you? Its irritating having to go back and edit it correctly.
Last edited by a moderator:
...and some folks do not understand how to do trivial things.
...or too lazy or stubborn. It's not rocket science...yet they feel the need to belittle others for not adhering to their deep, read between the lines systematic theologies.
At any rate, not sure how this concerns you.
Here is what I am getting so far....and anyone who knows more please chime in...There seem to be 4 possible camps:
1.) "Election" is properly understood as Primarily Corporate and secondarily (really by a default virtue of the former) individual
2.) "Election" is properly understood as Primarily Individual, and if some of us non-Cal heretics wanna yack about some kind of ethereal secondary "Corporate" perspective as well, just to make ourselves feel better...then we can knock ourselves out.
3.) Both are equally true and of relatively equal importance.
4.) Corporate Election is bogus....
This is actually a serious question...does that kind of sum-up the status? I (at least) am open for some pro-and-con lecturing. That is if you are actually familiar with it, and not merely brainwashed against the very notion of it...as no one on this board is of course.
Someone mentioned earlier (I think) or in some reading I was researching about how the Orthodox Churches seemed to have held primarily to a "Corporate" perspective without issue for ages. Is this so?
O.K. Last question.....:smilewinkgrin: This seems to be more of a "perspective" than a "doctrine" per se...it seems to me that this is compatible with just about any school of thought out there, even if it lends itself to some better than others. It seems to be consistent with just about all of them. True? I consider myself ostensibly Arminian...and a Molinist on the side...and it seems consistent enough with what I think. On it's face....this doesn't seem strictly inconsistent even with Calvinism...Thoughts?
1.) "Election" is properly understood as Primarily Corporate and secondarily (really by a default virtue of the former) individual
2.) "Election" is properly understood as Primarily Individual, and if some of us non-Cal heretics wanna yack about some kind of ethereal secondary "Corporate" perspective as well, just to make ourselves feel better...then we can knock ourselves out.
3.) Both are equally true and of relatively equal importance.
4.) Corporate Election is bogus....
This is actually a serious question...does that kind of sum-up the status? I (at least) am open for some pro-and-con lecturing. That is if you are actually familiar with it, and not merely brainwashed against the very notion of it...as no one on this board is of course.
Someone mentioned earlier (I think) or in some reading I was researching about how the Orthodox Churches seemed to have held primarily to a "Corporate" perspective without issue for ages. Is this so?
O.K. Last question.....:smilewinkgrin: This seems to be more of a "perspective" than a "doctrine" per se...it seems to me that this is compatible with just about any school of thought out there, even if it lends itself to some better than others. It seems to be consistent with just about all of them. True? I consider myself ostensibly Arminian...and a Molinist on the side...and it seems consistent enough with what I think. On it's face....this doesn't seem strictly inconsistent even with Calvinism...Thoughts?
Last edited by a moderator:
HOS,
I don't think you'll find any Calvinists who says election is not often Corporate in the Bible (Israel & Church, etc). They (we) would also say that it is ALSO individual. Skan might say this too, but that individual election is based on a person's individual faith (he can corrrect me if I'm wrong).
A cal (me) might also point out that even in the OT, where Israel is clearly the "elect" people of God...there were many other "non-elect" nations who were not given the revelation of God. Did God not give those foreign peoples an opportunity to believe in the true God and become the elect?
I don't think you'll find any Calvinists who says election is not often Corporate in the Bible (Israel & Church, etc). They (we) would also say that it is ALSO individual. Skan might say this too, but that individual election is based on a person's individual faith (he can corrrect me if I'm wrong).
A cal (me) might also point out that even in the OT, where Israel is clearly the "elect" people of God...there were many other "non-elect" nations who were not given the revelation of God. Did God not give those foreign peoples an opportunity to believe in the true God and become the elect?
The above bolded is absolutely wrong per Romans 1 and the fact ANY nation could serve the God of Israel and become a proselyte. Any Gentile could be grafted in via faith.
But that was on an individual basis. According to Skan they must elected "corporately". :laugh:
Yes...in Christ. Salvation was the same in the OT as it is today. Christ is God's Elect.
Besides, entire nations were approached before the Israelites expanded their territorites which put's a crimp on individual election as well.